Federal Judge Strikes Core Portion of the New Healthcare Law
Time 3 Minute Read

Yesterday, United States District Judge Henry E. Hudson (Eastern District of Virginia) found unconstitutional the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) provision which requires most uninsured Americans to obtain coverage or pay a penalty.

Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli sued Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, in her official capacity, alleging that the PPACA conflicts with Virginia law and that the Act’s purchase mandate is unconstitutional.  This lawsuit is similar to the lawsuit led by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum in which twenty other states are participating in Florida.  A hearing on the States’ motion for summary judgment in that case is scheduled for December 16, 2010.

The Act’s Minimum Essential Coverage Provision (Section 1501 of the PPACA) requires that every United States citizen, other than those specifically excepted, maintain a minimum level of health insurance coverage beginning in 2014.  According to Section 1501, the failure to comply will result in a penalty on a taxpayer’s annual tax return.

Judge Hudson opined—in connection with partially granting summary judgment to the Commonwealth of Virginia—that the requirement in Section 1501 of the PPACA that individual citizens purchase private health insurance is unconstitutional and exceeds Congress’s commerce-clause power.  According to Judge Hudson, Section 1501 of the PPACA constituted a “unchecked expansion of congressional power” that would “invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers.”  Judge Hudson also found unavailing the federal government’s argument that the purchase mandate is a valid exercise of Congress’s taxation power.  The Judge observed that the generation of revenue as a legislative objective was merely a “transparent afterthought.”  Judge Hudson severed Section 1501’s purchase mandate from the Act but declined to grant Virginia’s request for injunctive relief pending appellate review.  According to the Judge, the likelihood of irreparable harm—a necessary element for issuance of an injunction—was minimal considering that the purchase mandate at issue does not take effect until 2013.

The Virginia Attorney General’s Office is seeking to “fast track” the case to the United States Supreme Court.  This would require the Department of Justice to join with the Virginia Attorney General’s office in waiving a hearing in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, allowing the case to move immediately to the Supreme Court for resolution.

This case represents the first case involving a successful constitutional challenge to the PPACA.

Employer’s Take Away

This decision will not have an immediate impact on employers.  However, the decision adds to the growing uncertainty facing employers regarding the effect of PPACA on health insurance-related planning and budgeting.  We will continue to monitor PPACA-related developments in order to effectively guide employers through this field of uncertainty.

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 2 Minute Read

The past decade has seen an explosion in consumer products and services going digital—especially during the last two years of the COVID-19 pandemic. You can order your groceries, have your clothes dry-cleaned and your car detailed without ever leaving your home. While companies like Teledoc have created a realm of virtual health care, many medical procedures and other healthcare services still demand physical space outside of a patient’s home. Consumers are increasingly seeking convenience in their daily tasks and errands, and medical appointments are no exception. Enter medtail.

Time 4 Minute Read

The American Rescue Plan Act (“the Act”) signed in March 2021 provides for a 100% COBRA premium subsidy for certain individuals who are eligible for and enroll in COBRA coverage between April 1, 2021 and September 30, 2021. Employers sponsoring health plans should take action quickly to ensure that the subsidy is properly administered and consider its effects on any planned layoffs or other severance events.

Time 1 Minute Read

As expanded upon here in our firm’s Three Key Things in Health Care update, health care providers should not let a recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal dissuade them from aggressively pursuing recovery for business interruption losses related to COVID. In short, the authors of that editorial ignore the language and structure of many insurance policies, which either provide for coverage of COVID-related losses by their express terms or expressly contemplate state-mandated coverage expansions favoring the insured as binding on the insurer ...

Time 2 Minute Read

On May 14, 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a final rule stating that group health plans, including employer-sponsored health plans, are not required to count the value of drug manufacturer coupons toward participant deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums (the “Final Rule”).  The Final Rule, published in HHS's Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2021, allows group health plans to exclude the value of drug manufacturer coupons from participant annual cost-sharing amounts even where no medically appropriate generic drug is available.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page